Negotiating for Mutual Satisfaction | Harmonizing or Reconciling Needs 

Dear Readers, Today we will be discussing about “Harmonizing or Reconciling Needs“.
Unfortunately, when people are themselves as adversaries they deal at arm’s length or even through third parties. From this distance they state demands and counter-demands, pronounce conclusions, and hurl ultimatums at each other.
Since each party attempts to increase his relative power, significant data, facts, and Information are hoarded. One feelings, attitudes, and real needs are concealed lest they be used against one.
Obviously in such a climate, it is virtually impossible to negotiate for the satisfaction of mutual needs.
However, with the realization that Human beings are matchless, it follows that their goals cannot be mutually exclusive. In this climate, candor and trust can be established and there will be an exchange of attitudes, facts, personal feelings, and needs.
With this free interaction and sharing, creative solutions may be found that make both sides winners.
For Example, in the mid-1940’s, the late Howard Hughes produced a Motion Picture, The Outlaw. It featured Jane Russell, a beautiful brunette with an impressive cleavage. The movie may have been forgettable, but the billboards advertising the film were memorable. There was Jane Russell lying on some hay, supine in the sky. 
As a youngster I can still remember getting up Real High and trying to look down.
At the time, Hughes was so enamored of Russell that he signed her to a one-year, one-million-dollar personal-services contract.
12 months Later, Jane said, in effect, “I’d like my money pursuant to the contract.“
Howard claimed he wasn’t “Liquid” at the moment but had plenty of assets. The position of the Actress was that she didn’t want excuses; she wanted her money. Hughes kept on telling her about his temporary cash-flow problem and asking her to wait. Russell kept pointing to the legal contract, which clearly called for payment at year’s end.
The demands of each side seemed irreconcilable. Acting as adversaries in the competitive mode, they were dealing through their attorneys. What was formerly a close working relationship had become a win-lose struggle.
Rumors were rampant that the matter would end up in the legal system. ( Keep in mind that Howard Hughes is the person who would subsequently spend $12 million in Legal Fees in the controversary over control of TWA.)
If this conflict were litigated, who would win? Perhaps the only winners would be the Lawyers!
How was this conflict resolved? In effect, Russell and Hughes wisely said, “Look, you and I are different people. We have different Goals. Let’s see if we can’t share inflammation, Feelings, and needs in an atmosphere of Trust.“
That’s precisely what they did. Then, acting as collaborators, they came up with a creative solution to their problem that satisfied them both.
They transformed the original contract into 20 year deal for $50,000 per annum. The package contained the same amount of money, but it was now shaped differently. 
As a result, Hughes solved his “Liquidity Problem” and kept the interest on the principal sum. On the other hand,  Russell benefited by spreading her taxable income over a period of years, probably decreasing her taxes. 
By receiving what amounted to an annuity for 20 years, she solved her day-to-day financial problems.
The acting profession ordinarily is not very secure. Moreover, she not only “Saved Face“, but she won! Remember that when you’re dealing with an eccentric like Howard Hughes, even if you’re right you may not win.

In Terms of Individual- and different- needs, Russell and Hughes were both big winners.
Next we will discuss is :
“Conflict“
Do not forget to Follow my Website for Future Updates